FAAC Mobility Services NtK

RereyMuetre

Thanks, I will try an IAS appeal.
Just a quick query before doing so. The NtK states a Parking charge of £60 has been incurred (then goes on to say please pay £100, reduced to £60 within 14 days), but Railway Byelaw 14 signs at the station state a Penalty charge of £100, reduced to £50 within 14 days..

It's the difference between Railway £50 and Operator £60 charges I'm querying. Where byelaws are in place, does a parking operator have the authority to over-rule what the byelaws say?

RereyMuetre

              

Byelaw 14 sign.

RereyMuetre

Operator Sign: These two signs are side-by-side.

Coupon-mad

Oooh now that is a good point and evidence to include in the IAS appeal. The PCN issued by these agents offered the wrong discount amount, therefore making it impossible to pay £50 as offered on the Byelaws sign. Thus voiding the landowner authority from LNER, whose name appears on the top right of the red & white sign and who are the principal in the alleged contract. FAAC have no standing and issued a PCN for the wrong amount.

The small print - bottom right on the red sign - also says the 'driver' is liable (I think?) which also conflicts with Railway Byelaws which say the owner is liable. 

RereyMuetre

I've drafted an appeal. But more musings, now I've studied a little more. Does the railway byelaw always trump civil contract breach? 
I'm looking at the exact wording of byelaw 14, which states " The owner of any motor vehicle.......may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area". 

Penalty is what I'm looking at. The landowner / railway company can issue a penalty, but the civil enforcement company cannot. 
I don't see anywhere in the railway byelaw that an agent of the landowner can sue for breach of contract, and of course the agent can't issue a penalty. 

Am I reading too much into this? 

Coupon-mad

No you are right to question that but if this is first stage appeal, save most of it for later.